This website uses cookies primarily for visitor analytics. Certain pages will ask you to fill in contact details to receive additional information. On these pages you have the option of having the site log your details for future visits. Indicating you want the site to remember your details will place a cookie on your device. To view our full cookie policy, please click here. You can also view it at any time by going to our Contact Us page.

Evidence proves mechanically butchered meat is ‘meat’

31 May 2016

Following a High Court ruling, Leatherhead Food Research has stated that more sophisticated analysis is required for meat harvested using advanced mechanical butchery technologies. 

Microscopy performed by Leatherhead Food Research was pivotal to the recent case which ruled in favour of meat processor Newby Foods. Leatherhead was called to act as an expert witness, being the UK’s only UKAS accredited laboratory for muscle fibre structure analysis to determine the quality of mechanically separated meat. 
 
Leatherhead’s analysis demonstrated that the muscle fibre structure of chicken and pork harvested via Newby Foods’ process was consistent with ‘fresh meat’.  This led the judge to conclude that the meat was not mechanically separated meat, enabling it to contribute to the labelled meat content of end products.
 
The performance of butchery machines is improving, and in some cases this enables residual meat to be harvested with little damage to the muscle structure. Such developments play a vital role in the food industry, enhancing cost-effectiveness, reducing food waste and safeguarding the environment which is fundamental to European Legislation.
 
Newby Foods’ managing director, Graham Bishop, said: “The ‘Leatherhead method’ of analysis was directly referred to by Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in the final ruling. It proved beyond doubt that our meat has the properties of standard fresh meat, not mechanically separated meat.”
 
Head of Microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research, Professor Kathy Groves, explained further: “Our evaluation of Newby Foods’ samples involved detailed microstructural analysis. In all cases, the muscle fibre structures were almost completely intact, just as you would expect to see with fresh meat. The technique we used could enhance food manufacturers’ incoming quality inspections for products where the inclusion of mechanically butchered meat is acceptable, but mechanically separated meat is not.”
 
The Newby Foods case underlines the complexity of contemporary meat processing and classification. Food manufacturers need to consider many conflicting factors when developing meat products. To help the industry navigate these intricacies, Leatherhead has launched a White Paper: How much meat is in your sausage? Giving practical guidance on how manufacturers can balance regulatory requirements, cost implications and the consumer sensory experience, it is available to download at http://bit.ly/1SUCu5L.


Contact Details and Archive...

Print this page | E-mail this page

MOST VIEWED...


Article image Keeping cables and conduits and clean

Strict hygiene and cleanliness requirements apply to all equipment used in the food processing environment, including electrical components, cables and trunking. Food Processing finds out about a cleaning solution that utilises dry steam. Full Story...

Article image Appetite for Engineering event highlights the need to prepare for change

Suzanne Gill reports on this year’s Appetite for Engineering event, which took place at the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC) in Coventry on 19th October. 
Full Story...

What role does refrigeration play in the supply chain?

Anheuser-Busch InBev’s distribution strategy model

Recognising innovation at the Food Processing Awards

http://www.fponthenet.net/whitepapers.aspx?ShopItemID=1227